Hahn, Drew, Shibata, Tyler, Grove, Jackson, Sonwalkar, Rahul · Nov 7, 2026
arXiv cs.AI paper: DeepFinance asks whether AI can diligence a $100MM deal
Markdown · JSON · Original source
The authors of DeepFinance argue that evaluations focused on retrieving answers from financial documents and producing numerically correct outputs miss important parts of private equity and investment banking work: resolving conflicting sources, making sound assumptions, and keeping each step auditable. They introduce a of 21 end-to-end tasks, each pairing a request with a data room, a collection of deal-related files, averaging 19 files. The authors say a human professional takes an average of 27.1 hours per task, and grade model outputs against expert-written criteria covering output, workflow, and judgment. Across 22 model configurations, the best configuration, GPT-6 Astra with max reasoning, satisfies 57.6% of the rubric criteria; the authors report that the top four configurations are not statistically distinguishable. Their central caution is about how models reach answers, not just whether calculations are correct: often calculate from the wrong inputs or find decision-relevant evidence without acting on it. As an Escape Meridian interpretation, these results describe performance on this benchmark, not demonstrated diligence—the review of a deal—on an actual transaction.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 7, 2026 (2026-11-07).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T07:17:14.025Z. First observed: 2026-11-10T08:39:53.404Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T07:02:44.605Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The supplied evidence is the abstract, not the full paper; details of task construction, rubric criteria, and evaluation are therefore limited here. The reported scores concern performance on the DeepFinance and do not establish performance on actual deals.
Open question
How well do the tasks and rubric criteria capture the demands of real private equity and investment banking work?
Source-stated
The authors say existing evaluations often focus on document retrieval and numerical correctness, while real private equity and investment banking work also requires resolving conflicting sources, making assumptions, and keeping work auditable.
Real private equity (PE) and investment banking (IB) work also depends on choosing between conflicting sources, making sound assumptions, and keeping every step auditable.
Source-stated
The authors introduce DeepFinance, a benchmark of 21 end-to-end private equity and investment banking tasks; a human professional takes an average of 27.1 hours on each task.
an ultra long-horizon benchmark of 21 end-to-end PE and IB tasks that take a human professional an average of 27.1 hours
Source-stated
Each benchmark task pairs a request with a data room averaging 19 files and is assessed against expert-written criteria covering output, workflow, and judgment.
Each task pairs a request with a data room averaging 19 files and is graded against an average of 84 expert-written rubric criteria covering output, workflow, and judgment.
Source-stated
The best-performing evaluated configuration satisfies 57.6% of rubric criteria, and the authors report that the top four configurations are not statistically distinguishable.
The best configuration, GPT-6 Astra with max reasoning, satisfies 57.6% of rubric criteria, and the top four configurations are not statistically distinguishable.
Source-stated
The authors report that frontier models sometimes calculate correctly using wrong inputs or find relevant evidence without acting on it.
Frontier models often calculate correctly from the wrong inputs and find decision-relevant evidence without acting on it.
Escape Meridian interpretation
The abstract reports benchmark results, which do not by themselves establish how well those results represent diligence on actual deals.
We evaluate 22 model configurations, each in its native agent harness.
Source and contributor context
Hahn, Drew, Shibata, Tyler, Grove, Jackson, Sonwalkar, Rahul · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Frontier model
One of the most capable AI models available at a given time; the set shifts as models improve.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 8fb46511-e82f-4209-86ea-d44ba63a96e3.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T07:17:14.025Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: c1a4e3e9c19e9859766a0fb5b7ce162221556cd1dcc8ab888b9514ac531e8621. Source text hash: 824c15cb5018bb15fb24336dfea2e01542ac931334be705228983d7bec957e1c.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-12T07:17:14.025Z
arXiv cs.AI paper: DeepFinance asks whether AI can diligence a $100MM deal
The authors of DeepFinance argue that evaluations focused on retrieving answers from financial documents and producing numerically correct outputs miss important parts of private equity and investment banking work: resolving conflicting sources, making sound assumptions, and keeping each step auditable. They introduce a of 21 end-to-end tasks, each pairing a request with a data room, a collection of deal-related files, averaging 19 files. The authors say a human professional takes an average of 27.1 hours per task, and grade model outputs against expert-written criteria covering output, workflow, and judgment. Across 22 model configurations, the best configuration, GPT-6 Astra with max reasoning, satisfies 57.6% of the rubric criteria; the authors report that the top four configurations are not statistically distinguishable. Their central caution is about how models reach answers, not just whether calculations are correct: often calculate from the wrong inputs or find decision-relevant evidence without acting on it. As an Escape Meridian interpretation, these results describe performance on this benchmark, not demonstrated diligence—the review of a deal—on an actual transaction.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 7, 2026 (2026-11-07).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T07:17:14.025Z. First observed: 2026-11-10T08:39:53.404Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T07:02:44.605Z.
Limits
The supplied evidence is the abstract, not the full paper; details of task construction, rubric criteria, and evaluation are therefore limited here. The reported scores concern performance on the DeepFinance and do not establish performance on actual deals.
Open question
How well do the tasks and rubric criteria capture the demands of real private equity and investment banking work?
Source-stated
The authors say existing evaluations often focus on document retrieval and numerical correctness, while real private equity and investment banking work also requires resolving conflicting sources, making assumptions, and keeping work auditable.
Real private equity (PE) and investment banking (IB) work also depends on choosing between conflicting sources, making sound assumptions, and keeping every step auditable.
Source-stated
The authors introduce DeepFinance, a benchmark of 21 end-to-end private equity and investment banking tasks; a human professional takes an average of 27.1 hours on each task.
an ultra long-horizon benchmark of 21 end-to-end PE and IB tasks that take a human professional an average of 27.1 hours
Source-stated
Each benchmark task pairs a request with a data room averaging 19 files and is assessed against expert-written criteria covering output, workflow, and judgment.
Each task pairs a request with a data room averaging 19 files and is graded against an average of 84 expert-written rubric criteria covering output, workflow, and judgment.
Source-stated
The best-performing evaluated configuration satisfies 57.6% of rubric criteria, and the authors report that the top four configurations are not statistically distinguishable.
The best configuration, GPT-6 Astra with max reasoning, satisfies 57.6% of rubric criteria, and the top four configurations are not statistically distinguishable.
Source-stated
The authors report that frontier models sometimes calculate correctly using wrong inputs or find relevant evidence without acting on it.
Frontier models often calculate correctly from the wrong inputs and find decision-relevant evidence without acting on it.
Escape Meridian interpretation
The abstract reports benchmark results, which do not by themselves establish how well those results represent diligence on actual deals.
We evaluate 22 model configurations, each in its native agent harness.
Source and contributor context
Hahn, Drew, Shibata, Tyler, Grove, Jackson, Sonwalkar, Rahul · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Frontier model
One of the most capable AI models available at a given time; the set shifts as models improve.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 8fb46511-e82f-4209-86ea-d44ba63a96e3.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T07:17:14.025Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: c1a4e3e9c19e9859766a0fb5b7ce162221556cd1dcc8ab888b9514ac531e8621. Source text hash: 824c15cb5018bb15fb24336dfea2e01542ac931334be705228983d7bec957e1c.
uncertain · 2026-11-12T07:17:14.025Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 8fb46511-e82f-4209-86ea-d44ba63a96e3
attribution — pass: The reading attributes the benchmark, its framing, and its results to the paper's authors on arXiv. The paper is primarily cs.CL and cross-listed in cs.AI, so calling it an arXiv cs.AI paper is acceptable. The model result is kept as the authors' report.
Authors:Drew Hahn, Tyler Shibata, Jackson Grove, Rahul Sonwalkar
summary — pass: The summary states the authors' argument about the gap in existing evaluations. It defines data room and diligence in plain language and reports the scale, scores, and statistical tie. It also keeps the central caution that calculations can be correct while the inputs are wrong. The title and question follow from the evidence. The labeled interpretation stays conditional on the benchmark and does not overstate it.
Frontier models often calculate correctly from the wrong inputs and find decision-relevant evidence without acting on it.
date — pass: The originalPublished date, 2026-11-07, matches the v1 submission date in the arXiv history. The feed date of Nov 10 comes later and was correctly not used.
[v1] Sat, 7 Nov 2026 19:31:09 UTC (141 KB)
support — uncertain: Claim 5 changes the source's 'often' to 'sometimes' and its 'and' to 'or', which softens the authors' stated frequency. The summary body correctly says 'often'. Smallest repair: change claim 5 to 'often calculate correctly using wrong inputs and find relevant evidence without acting on it.' The other claims match the source, and the interpretation claim is properly labeled.
Frontier models often calculate correctly from the wrong inputs and find decision-relevant evidence without acting on it.
media — pass: The selected media is the verified arXiv abstract page, which is the direct original source. It is the most relevant link available.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceOne of the most capable AI models available at a given time; the set shifts as models improve.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivarXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceOne of the most capable AI models available at a given time; the set shifts as models improve.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivarXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition reference